REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. CARMENCITA M. ALCONABA, et. al.
G.R. No. 155012 April 14, 2004
FACTS:
On 14 November 1996, the respondents filed before the MTC of Cabuyao, Laguna, an
application5 for registration of title over five parcels of land situated in Barangay Sala, Cabuyao, Laguna.
They alleged that they are the sole heirs of Spouses Melencio E. Melendez, Sr., and Luz Batallones
Melendez, original owners of Lot 2111. Their parents had been in possession of the said property since
1949, more or less. After the death of their death, they partitioned the property among themselves and
subdivided it into five lots. Since then, they have been in actual possession of the property in the
concept of owners and in a public and peaceful manner. Petitioner Republic opposed the said
application on the grounds that neither the respondents nor their predecessors-in-interest have been in
open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the land in question since 1945
or prior thereto, tax declaration and tax receipts, presented by the respondents do not constitute
competent and sufficient evidence of a bona fide right to registration of the land, the claim of ownership
in fee simple on the basis of a Spanish title or grant can no longer be availed of by the respondents; and
the land is part of the public domain belonging to the Republic of the Philippines. On September 1, 1998,
the trial court found that the respondents have sufficiently established their family's actual, continuous,
adverse, and notorious possession of the subject property for more than fifty-seven years, commencing
from the possession of their predecessors-in-interest in 1940, and that such possession was in an
adverse and public manner. Likewise, it found that the land in question is alienable and disposable and is
not within any reservation or forest zone. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the application for registration of title over five parcels of land filed by the
respondents should be granted.
HELD:
The application for registration should be denied. Applicants for confirmation of imperfect title
must, prove the following: (a) that the land forms part of the disposable and alienable agricultural lands
of the public domain; and (b) that they have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious
possession and occupation of the same under a bona fide claim of ownership either since time
immemorial or since 12 June 1945. In the present case, there is no doubt that the subject property is
part of the disposable and alienable agricultural lands of the public domain. However, the respondents
have failed to discharge the burden of showing that Lot 2111 was classified as part of the disposable and
alienable agricultural lands of public domain as of 12 June 1945 or earlier.
Likewise, the respondents have failed to prove that they and their predecessors-in-interest have
been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the subject property
under a bona fide claim of ownership either since time immemorial or since 12 June 1945.1awphil.
Respondents' bare assertions of possession and occupation by their predecessors-in-interest since 1940
or since 1949 are hardly "the well-nigh incontrovertible" evidence required in cases of this nature. Proof
of specific acts of ownership must be presented to substantiate their claim. They cannot just offer
general statements which are mere conclusions of law than factual evidence of possession. Even
granting that the possession by the respondents' parents commenced in 1940, still they failed to prove
that their predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession
and occupation of the subject land under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership for there is no
evidence on record shows that Spouses Mauricio and Luz Melendez cultivated, had control over, or used
the whole or even a greater portion of the tract of land for agricultural purposes. Moreover, only one
tenant worked on the land, and there is no evidence as to how big was the portion occupied by the
tenant. Moreover, there is no competent proof that the Melendez Spouses declared the land in their
name for taxation purposes or paid its taxes. While tax receipts and declarations are not
incontrovertible evidence of ownership, they constitute, at the least, proof that the holder has a claim of
title over the property. The voluntary declaration of a piece of property for taxation purposes not only
manifests one's sincere and honest desire to obtain title to the property, but also announces an adverse
claim against the State and all other interested parties with an intention to contribute needed revenues
to the government. Such an act strengthens one's bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership.
The records also reveal that the subject property was declared for taxation purposes by the
respondents only for the year 1994. They paid the taxes thereon only for the years 1990, 1991, 1992,
1994, 1996, and 1997. Being of recent dates, the assertion of the respondents that they immediately
took possession of the property in the concept of an owner after the death of their parents should not
be trusted. While belated declaration of a property for taxation purposes does not necessarily negate
the fact of possession, tax declarations or realty tax payments of property are, nevertheless, good
indicia of possession in the concept of an owner, for no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a
property that is not in his actual or, at least, constructive possession. Likewise, none of the respondents
reside on the subject property. Carmencita even admitted that plans of selling the property were at
hand. Thus, it would be rational to conclude that this move for registration is just but a camouflage by
smart land speculators who saw in the land applied for expected profits from its existence. Since
respondent failed to prove that (1) Lot 2111 was classified as part of the disposable and alienable
agricultural lands of public domain as of 12 June 1945 or earlier; (2) they and their predecessors-in-
interest have been in continuous, exclusive, and adverse possession and occupation thereof in the
concept of owners from 12 June 1945 or earlier. Their application for registration therefore should be
dismissed.
